It is the exact same reason I read the ending to every movie I watch or want to watch. If the ending isn't good and isn't happy, then I refuse to watch it and may even walk out (unless I'm at the theater with friends).

Same thing with video games, I will read the ending, and if the ending is good, I might buy it, if not, I won't.

I read fiction to feel better and fiction (and all forms of art) should be to lift the person up and make them feel good, not dash them into pieces and make them feel like crap.

I'd like to recommend a film to you that you'd really enjoy. It's called Grave of the Fireflies. Don't read the ending- it's a great surprise! But it's animated, so you know it will have a happy ending.

Oh man that movie...

Yes Devin WATCH THAT MOVIE.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I'm glad that as I grew up watching Friends, they didn't screw us over and gave us what we wanted, to see everyone together, married and happy.

'Cause that's what life is like.

Fiction ain't about "real life", art should always be about taking us out of this world and making us feel good.

Oh and by the way, you're Orthodox, and therefore you believe that things will turn out perfect and alright in the end. The evil get their (sad and unfortunate) "justice" and the good get their reward and live in happiness forever. Did Jesus die, and then, that is it? No, Jesus died, and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

It is the exact same reason I read the ending to every movie I watch or want to watch. If the ending isn't good and isn't happy, then I refuse to watch it and may even walk out (unless I'm at the theater with friends).

Same thing with video games, I will read the ending, and if the ending is good, I might buy it, if not, I won't.

I read fiction to feel better and fiction (and all forms of art) should be to lift the person up and make them feel good, not dash them into pieces and make them feel like crap.

I'd like to recommend a film to you that you'd really enjoy. It's called Grave of the Fireflies. Don't read the ending- it's a great surprise! But it's animated, so you know it will have a happy ending.

Oh man that movie...

Yes Devin WATCH THAT MOVIE.

No, I've already read a synopsis and summary of the ending. No way in heck I'd watch that stupid movie. Like I said, movies should lift you up and make you feel better about yourself, about humanity, about life, about other people.

Pessimists and cynics can go crawl in a corner and mope around till they die. Let the optimists have art and movie-making.

Like I said, movies should always have happy endings, with the protagonists living on in peace and happiness, possibly with children and with the antagonists suffering at the hand of justice.

Well movies should also make us compassionate for the suffering of others as well, because let me tell you, there are very few happy endings in life.

I mean yes, movies that empower us and uplift us are good things but we can also use movies that do not do this to our benefit as well.

They may make us compassionate, but the protagonists should show compassion, and the suffering people should be satisfied. The people who cause them suffering should always come to justice.

This is one of the major reasons I'm a Orthodox Christian, atheism leaves no purpose and might as well end in suicide. People who suffer may die (like Lazarus in the parable) but get their satisfaction in eternity. We just haven't seen "the end" of the story.

Let's look at real life why don't we? Nazis and Gestapo at Nuremburg, Hitler, Saddam, Osama, Qaddafi and others, all committing evils, but faced justice. Or look at Julian the Apostate, who killed so many Christians, who are now in heaven, and he died a terrible, painful death that he deserved.

And if they aren't saved in the end, they will spend an eternity "burning" (not in a good way) due to overwhelming God's grace & love. Those who are saved, will be forever illumined and grow in his nature, becoming more and more like him. This is real life.

The only purpose of all kinds of art including sculpture, painting, architecture, movies, TV, books, graphic novels, poems and music should be to lift us up and make us feel good, and show that justice is served to those who do evil and those who are good or who suffer at the hands of evil find comfort, love and happiness.

Why do you think I almost exclusively listen to classical music, Orthodox chant and early 20th Century popular music? The "classical" artists, architects, composers, musicians and writers were superb in lifting up the human person and creating things and environments that made you feel better about your life and about your world, just take Vivaldi's Four Seasons as an example: http://youtu.be/GRxofEmo3HAOr as a more "contemporary" example, you have Swing music of the early 20th Century, along with other genres which people loved for many reasons, one of those important reasons being it could lift you up and at least bring you out of the Great Depression, if only for a time.

There is also a reason that while I think Skyrim is pretty fun as a game, it also sucks to a degree because it seems to borrow a lot from Nietzsche with it's relative morality and no real clear good-evil division and decisions for either side includes some good but also some evil as well.

There is grey area in Star Wars as well, but there is a distinction between good and evil, with the Light side of the force and its users being good, and the Dark Side of the force and its users being evil. Therefore the evil should also get justice, the good should also triumph and "live happily ever after".

And no, this isn't the same as I complained about earlier about being "kid friendly".

Attempting to appease the fanboys who bought all the books, magazines, comic books, video games, lunch boxes, etc. is virtually a guarantee that the new movie would suck. What is needed are writers and directors who are not particularly in love with the Star Wars franchise and who have an idea of what makes good art and good space opera in general.

The new movie may very well suck but it won't be because it violates some sacred Star Wars canon.

You're not a Star Wars fan, clearly. The books, magazines, comic books and the rest of the Expanded Universe is absolutely amazing, and would make for a great film! (minus the stupid emperor clone thing)

I've long said that KOTOR, KOTOR II, and the once-planned (until LucasArts scrapped it) KOTOR III would have made for an awesome Star Wars trilogy.

I agree. One of my favorite Star Wars Story lines. I was extremely disappointed when KOTOR III was dropped. I REALLY waned to know what happens next.

Go to wookiepedia and read the article on Revan, it will fill you in on the details (whether or not the details are the same as they'd have been if we got KOTOR III, I've no clue).

What happened to Revan is in the game Star Wars The Old Republic. They did an excellent job with that game EA is just a terrible company.

My bro played it and did all the Revan quests.

I wish they would have made SWTOR for a console. Whichever company has the guts and know-how to make an MMO for consoles first will make a killing.

I used to think a KOTOR mmo would be awesome...until I stopped and realized it would only be on the damn computer.`

It is/was pretty awesome. Unfortunately EA have their grubby, fat, greedy hands on it and they bend over backwards to the will of their investors. Bioware delivered a great product, but EA Games cut their balls off (well, and the rest of the 3/4 of their body). I honestly want to see EA Games and Sony Online Entertainment both crash and burn for what they did to SWTOR & SWG.

Fiction ain't about "real life", art should always be about taking us out of this world and making us feel good.

I disagree with a lot of your posts in this thread, but I agree with this one. It baffles me why people watch entertainment that is basically voyeurism into another person's life. Nothing extraordinary, just pretty much the same crap I live with every day. It has to be set apart somehow.

I don't need a happy ending though. A.I. would have been better if David was left at the bottom of the ocean forever, for instance. But it has to has to have something to take it beyond the mundane of everyday life. I want to be entertained; if I want to ponder about life I'll watch the news or read a spiritual book.

I hope Harrison comes back. He's the best actor of the three, and Indy 4's failure was not his fault. He might not do it though, as he always wanted to move on from that, his first major role, and develop more. But he's getting old and that could be a great way to wind down his career.

I'm more worried about the music. I was afraid John Williams would die before he finished Ep III. I'm still disappointed by how much music they recycled in II and III. He's probably not up for it, but whoever they get had better be a kindred spirit to him.

Anyway, as a sidebar, if anyone wants to see the prequels redeemed, I highly recommend tracking down the Phantom Edits of I and II. The editor does away with the fluff in both and the horrific execution of Anakin and Padme's romance, actually saving the films in many ways. (It's not just taking out Jar Jar, as he does serve a purpose.)

Fiction ain't about "real life", art should always be about taking us out of this world and making us feel good.

I disagree with a lot of your posts in this thread, but I agree with this one. It baffles me why people watch entertainment that is basically voyeurism into another person's life. Nothing extraordinary, just pretty much the same crap I live with every day. It has to be set apart somehow.

I don't need a happy ending though. A.I. would have been better if David was left at the bottom of the ocean forever, for instance. But it has to has to have something to take it beyond the mundane of everyday life. I want to be entertained; if I want to ponder about life I'll watch the news or read a spiritual book.

I hope Harrison comes back. He's the best actor of the three, and Indy 4's failure was not his fault. He might not do it though, as he always wanted to move on from that, his first major role, and develop more. But he's getting old and that could be a great way to wind down his career.

I'm more worried about the music. I was afraid John Williams would die before he finished Ep III. I'm still disappointed by how much music they recycled in II and III. He's probably not up for it, but whoever they get had better be a kindred spirit to him.

Anyway, as a sidebar, if anyone wants to see the prequels redeemed, I highly recommend tracking down the Phantom Edits of I and II. The editor does away with the fluff in both and the horrific execution of Anakin and Padme's romance, actually saving the films in many ways. (It's not just taking out Jar Jar, as he does serve a purpose.)

I think stories like Lord of the Rings, the Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter, Star Wars (current) and others are great because they take you out of your world, give you hope and lift you up. Star Wars is all about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker from his fall. The sequels should be about the continuation of his legacy, the Skywalker legacy and the journey of the Skywalkers to maintain the balance that Anakin was prophesied to bring. That doesn't mean Luke has to found a whole order, but it should mean that Luke has to have a child. He shouldn't die alone and without heirs. Good has triumphed, but evil still exists and the sequels should be about the Skywalkers & Solo legacies to maintain that order through The Force & through Diplomacy.

The Empire is dead with the Emperor and I could understand ignoring the "Remnants" of the post-ROTJ books. They could be done without. However, there needs to be a unifying government born out of the Rebel Alliance, and the "New Republic" should be just that. It shouldn't be a fleeting group though, and its defeat or subjugation within a century of its birth in the books should also be done away with.The Yuuzhan Vong provide a great new enemy. The whole idea of the "emperor's clones" and "third death star at Kessel" or of a new "Sith Empire" are simply rehashes of the same old stories which should have been resolved at ROTJ. The Yuuzhan Vong are enemies devoid of the force, and who cannot be detected or read by the force, and who's presence doesn't necessarily disrupt the balance of the Force (which should be maintained after ROTJ per the prophecies about Anakin).

Depending on when they set the movies, Han Solo could be dead, but it should only be of old age. Chewbacca could be caring for an elderly Leia while her and Han's children enter adulthood. They can also forget Chewbacca's whole death thing, that'd be okay as well.

This is where they should more directly insert EU canon. Mara Jade should be included here. Mara should be Luke's wife, but Luke, at the point of these movies should be an elderly man, possibly a widower. They should have only one son, Ben Skywalker, who, like the Solo children, is entering adulthood. In the first movie, much like Ben, Luke "passes the torch" to his son, the third Skywalker, who then heads off to adventure with the Solo kids, 3PO & R2. At this point, they could have Luke become one with the force in the presence of his family, and end his death with him standing "force ghost" alongside Ben, Yoda, Mara and Anakin as a young Luke. This would be the conclusion of the "old generation", with Leia living the rest of her life as a senator in the New Republic (with Chewy, 3PO and R2 at her side) and eventually passing on, unifying with the force as her brother & father did. The only remnants of the original 6 would be Chewy, 3PO & R2. Chewy's life-debt could be retired with the death of Leia, and he could be sent off to his family, maybe have one of his children adventure with the Solo children. 3PO & R2 would aid Ben Skywalker (and occasionally the Solos) in his adventures.

This would all be the first movie, allowing the next two to be all about the children.

This would be, in my mind, an acceptable way to "forget the EU" while also nodding and respecting the EU, and staying true to the Star Wars saga.

There are many of us, and many people older than I, who have dedicated a lot of time and money to the Star Wars franchise, and especially to the Expanded Universe. We did so with the understanding that most of what we bought into was second only to "G canon", and that it would be respected. It has been respected, and in many examples, George has actually included the EU in his movies. This is all we really ask for.

Star Wars cannot be given the new "Star Trek" treatment. You can't create a new "universe" or "dimension". You also cannot give it the "reboot" treatment of the Avengers and Marvel. Marvel comics and the characters within them have been so varied throughout time with many different storylines and offshoots that a new reboot isn't much of a problem.With Star Wars, you have a canon and a continuity that all authors have to stick to. In order to publish their works, authors had to get permission from "Lucas" and their work had to directly check with the "holocron" (IE: Leland Chee, who also answers(ed) to George Lucas himself) and the canon.Some minor things in the books can and have been scrapped. That isn't a problem. The problem is completely scrapping it all and "starting over".

This, to many of us who have been fans our whole lives, and who have dedicated our own time and money into the entire franchise (not just the movies), this feels like an absolute slap in the face, and an insult to everything we've known as Star Wars. Does the average, casual movie-goer care about the Expanded Universe? No, they don't. But that doesn't mean that a huge part of the Star Wars community should be ignored just because the "casual folks" don't care. I think, for all his faults, George understood this and respected this, and Disney should be expected to do the same. Rather than stabbing us in the back and throwing salt on the wound for good measure, they should respectfully nod towards the EU and respect it and what it has done.

@88Devin12 : Luke, Han, and Leia (as well as Jaina, Ben or Allana) have to die because at the time of Kol or Cade they are already dead. But there is absolutely nothing known about the period between 45 and 130 ABY. I wouldn't mind if the movies were placed in that period and they described the rise of the Fel Empire (including some deaths) for example. It would be canonical.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

It is the exact same reason I read the ending to every movie I watch or want to watch. If the ending isn't good and isn't happy, then I refuse to watch it and may even walk out (unless I'm at the theater with friends).

Same thing with video games, I will read the ending, and if the ending is good, I might buy it, if not, I won't.

I read fiction to feel better and fiction (and all forms of art) should be to lift the person up and make them feel good, not dash them into pieces and make them feel like crap.

That is why I stick mostly to non-fiction and the only fictional series I've ever gotten into is Star Wars because it is mostly good without a ton of terrible tragedy. Darth Vader killed his love, but he was redeemed in the end, dying in the arms of his son. His son lives on, marries, and while she dies a tragic death at the hands of a family member (Han & Leia's son if I recall), Luke & her son lives on, and eventually you arrive hundreds of years later and his bloodline still continues.

Like in LOTR, sure it really sucks that Frodo is gone, but the other main protagonists and Aragorn live, marry and have children. Or like Harry Potter, where they all marry and have kids in the end.

There are many of us, and many people older than I, who have dedicated a lot of time and money to the Star Wars franchise, and especially to the Expanded Universe. We did so with the understanding that most of what we bought into was second only to "G canon", and that it would be respected. It has been respected, and in many examples, George has actually included the EU in his movies. This is all we really ask for.

And in many examples, George Lucas took the EU and wiped with it. The Clone Wars were so much better before the prequels came out.

Quote

Star Wars cannot be given the new "Star Trek" treatment. You can't create a new "universe" or "dimension". You also cannot give it the "reboot" treatment of the Avengers and Marvel. Marvel comics and the characters within them have been so varied throughout time with many different storylines and offshoots that a new reboot isn't much of a problem.

You can reboot anything.

Quote

With Star Wars, you have a canon and a continuity that all authors have to stick to. In order to publish their works, authors had to get permission from "Lucas" and their work had to directly check with the "holocron" (IE: Leland Chee, who also answers(ed) to George Lucas himself) and the canon.Some minor things in the books can and have been scrapped. That isn't a problem. The problem is completely scrapping it all and "starting over".

You do realize that the possibility for any serious discussion of "canon" and "continuity" went out the window about fifteen years ago? Han shot first.

Quote

This, to many of us who have been fans our whole lives, and who have dedicated our own time and money into the entire franchise (not just the movies), this feels like an absolute slap in the face, and an insult to everything we've known as Star Wars. Does the average, casual movie-goer care about the Expanded Universe? No, they don't. But that doesn't mean that a huge part of the Star Wars community should be ignored just because the "casual folks" don't care. I think, for all his faults, George understood this and respected this, and Disney should be expected to do the same. Rather than stabbing us in the back and throwing salt on the wound for good measure, they should respectfully nod towards the EU and respect it and what it has done.

You realize that neither Lucas nor Disney owe the fans squat? The EU was not the height of Western literary achievement- it was a woefully uneven string of books and comic books, some good, most bad- as any ongoing series that has a revolving door of authors is going to be. I love Spiderman- this doesn't mean I feel absolute devotion to each and every Spiderman comic that has ever come out. There have been plenty of downright horrible Spiderman storylines. I'm sure somebody LOVED say, the '90s Clone storyline or the Sins of the Father or JMS's run, but the rest of us are happy that they have never been mentioned again.

Whatever they do, keep R.A. Salvatore far, far away (see what I did there?) from the script.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

It is the exact same reason I read the ending to every movie I watch or want to watch. If the ending isn't good and isn't happy, then I refuse to watch it and may even walk out (unless I'm at the theater with friends).

Same thing with video games, I will read the ending, and if the ending is good, I might buy it, if not, I won't.

I read fiction to feel better and fiction (and all forms of art) should be to lift the person up and make them feel good, not dash them into pieces and make them feel like crap.

That is why I stick mostly to non-fiction and the only fictional series I've ever gotten into is Star Wars because it is mostly good without a ton of terrible tragedy. Darth Vader killed his love, but he was redeemed in the end, dying in the arms of his son. His son lives on, marries, and while she dies a tragic death at the hands of a family member (Han & Leia's son if I recall), Luke & her son lives on, and eventually you arrive hundreds of years later and his bloodline still continues.

Like in LOTR, sure it really sucks that Frodo is gone, but the other main protagonists and Aragorn live, marry and have children. Or like Harry Potter, where they all marry and have kids in the end.

There's this Russian flick I think you'd just LOVE. It's called Come and See.

It is the exact same reason I read the ending to every movie I watch or want to watch. If the ending isn't good and isn't happy, then I refuse to watch it and may even walk out (unless I'm at the theater with friends).

Same thing with video games, I will read the ending, and if the ending is good, I might buy it, if not, I won't.

I read fiction to feel better and fiction (and all forms of art) should be to lift the person up and make them feel good, not dash them into pieces and make them feel like crap.

That is why I stick mostly to non-fiction and the only fictional series I've ever gotten into is Star Wars because it is mostly good without a ton of terrible tragedy. Darth Vader killed his love, but he was redeemed in the end, dying in the arms of his son. His son lives on, marries, and while she dies a tragic death at the hands of a family member (Han & Leia's son if I recall), Luke & her son lives on, and eventually you arrive hundreds of years later and his bloodline still continues.

Like in LOTR, sure it really sucks that Frodo is gone, but the other main protagonists and Aragorn live, marry and have children. Or like Harry Potter, where they all marry and have kids in the end.

There's this Russian flick I think you'd just LOVE. It's called Come and See.

The protagonist is still alive at the end, so you know it's an uplifting film.

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

It is the exact same reason I read the ending to every movie I watch or want to watch. If the ending isn't good and isn't happy, then I refuse to watch it and may even walk out (unless I'm at the theater with friends).

Same thing with video games, I will read the ending, and if the ending is good, I might buy it, if not, I won't.

I read fiction to feel better and fiction (and all forms of art) should be to lift the person up and make them feel good, not dash them into pieces and make them feel like crap.

That is why I stick mostly to non-fiction and the only fictional series I've ever gotten into is Star Wars because it is mostly good without a ton of terrible tragedy. Darth Vader killed his love, but he was redeemed in the end, dying in the arms of his son. His son lives on, marries, and while she dies a tragic death at the hands of a family member (Han & Leia's son if I recall), Luke & her son lives on, and eventually you arrive hundreds of years later and his bloodline still continues.

Like in LOTR, sure it really sucks that Frodo is gone, but the other main protagonists and Aragorn live, marry and have children. Or like Harry Potter, where they all marry and have kids in the end.

There's this Russian flick I think you'd just LOVE. It's called Come and See.

The protagonist is still alive at the end, so you know it's an uplifting film.

Just read a synopsis, that's an acceptable ending. The Nazis (or rather the SS) are killed for burning the Byelorussians. The protagonist joins the partisans to go and continue fighting the Germans.While obviously fictional, I would also suggest that the end of Inglourious Basterds is acceptable with Bitler and the rest of the nazis being burned and shot to death, even while the protagonists die with them.

I also kind of take issue with Saving Private Ryan since Tom Hank's character dies, even though Matt Damon's lives.

Another film with a crappy ending would be the Sixth Sense. The whole twist of Bruce Willis' character dying tragically in front of his wife and being a ghost the whole time is far too sad and depressing.

Or as I mentioned before, the Final Cut where Robin Williams tried to keep his memory away from the evil people and in the end fails and is shot dead in the graveyard.Or the Skeleton Key where Kate Hudson's character struggles against the antagonist throughout the film, only to fall victim to it and die in the end, just becoming another victim.Or the Departed where nearly every single character dies in the end.Or the Godfather where the main character dies old, abandoned and alone in the end.

It is the exact same reason I read the ending to every movie I watch or want to watch. If the ending isn't good and isn't happy, then I refuse to watch it and may even walk out (unless I'm at the theater with friends).

Same thing with video games, I will read the ending, and if the ending is good, I might buy it, if not, I won't.

I read fiction to feel better and fiction (and all forms of art) should be to lift the person up and make them feel good, not dash them into pieces and make them feel like crap.

That is why I stick mostly to non-fiction and the only fictional series I've ever gotten into is Star Wars because it is mostly good without a ton of terrible tragedy. Darth Vader killed his love, but he was redeemed in the end, dying in the arms of his son. His son lives on, marries, and while she dies a tragic death at the hands of a family member (Han & Leia's son if I recall), Luke & her son lives on, and eventually you arrive hundreds of years later and his bloodline still continues.

Like in LOTR, sure it really sucks that Frodo is gone, but the other main protagonists and Aragorn live, marry and have children. Or like Harry Potter, where they all marry and have kids in the end.

There's this Russian flick I think you'd just LOVE. It's called Come and See.

The protagonist is still alive at the end, so you know it's an uplifting film.

Just read a synopsis, that's an acceptable ending.

Great, now go rent that sucker and prepare to be uplifted

Logged

Quote

Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!

Devin's aesthetics have more in common with Stalin's socialist realism than anything Christian.

I was thinking more Ayn Rand's Objectivist rules for art.

Neither of you clearly know the history of art and architecture. Maybe you should learn more about art prior to the 20th century? Prior to the travesty called "modern art".

Also, fascist regimes like Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini may have used classicism, but it is a logical fallacy to conclude that because they used those styles that those styles are inherently fascist, authoritarian and evil. Remember that before they turned against it, they were actually part of and utilized (quite heavily) modernism. In fact I think it was either Stalin or Lenin who fed their ideas and philosophy in avant-gard venues.

Fascism and the idiocy of people like Stalin and Ayn Rand don't reflect badly on the classical tradition.

You're talking to someone who has a minor degree in the history of art and architecture, and who has taken hundreds (if not over a thousand) of hours of classes on the subject.

It is the exact same reason I read the ending to every movie I watch or want to watch. If the ending isn't good and isn't happy, then I refuse to watch it and may even walk out (unless I'm at the theater with friends).

Same thing with video games, I will read the ending, and if the ending is good, I might buy it, if not, I won't.

I read fiction to feel better and fiction (and all forms of art) should be to lift the person up and make them feel good, not dash them into pieces and make them feel like crap.

That is why I stick mostly to non-fiction and the only fictional series I've ever gotten into is Star Wars because it is mostly good without a ton of terrible tragedy. Darth Vader killed his love, but he was redeemed in the end, dying in the arms of his son. His son lives on, marries, and while she dies a tragic death at the hands of a family member (Han & Leia's son if I recall), Luke & her son lives on, and eventually you arrive hundreds of years later and his bloodline still continues.

Like in LOTR, sure it really sucks that Frodo is gone, but the other main protagonists and Aragorn live, marry and have children. Or like Harry Potter, where they all marry and have kids in the end.

There's this Russian flick I think you'd just LOVE. It's called Come and See.

The protagonist is still alive at the end, so you know it's an uplifting film.

Just read a synopsis, that's an acceptable ending.

Great, now go rent that sucker and prepare to be uplifted

I didn't say it was uplifting, I said its ending is acceptable. At least the end gives you hope that more Nazis will pay for the evil they committed. The Byelorussians who were killed cant come back, but justice can be served.

I think the movies will be better off if George Lucas DOES NOT make them. People who aren't George Lucas understand Star Wars.

A great thing that comes from this deal is that people other than George Lucas will be making a Star Wars movie. That's been the dream for YEARS. Say what you will about the prequels (ex.: "Boooooo!"), but the main problem with them is that they weren't Star Wars movies. They were clunky homages to Star Wars in the Star Wars universe. This is because, despite being the "visionary" behind them, I don't think George Lucas actually likes Star Wars. If he does, then he doesn't know why. He doesn't understand what people like about it. He doesn't understand what makes it good. If he did, he wouldn't have done [anything he's done in the past two decades].

George just got Star Wars WRONG somehow in the prequels. There were light sabers, there were droids and there were Jedi, but it wasn't Star Wars. When he made A New Hope, he was setting out to make a film drawing from all the old Westerns and sci-fi serials he loved as a kid. He didn't know what Star Wars was -- he just made it. When he made the prequels, however, he was actively trying to make what he thought a Star Wars movie was, and that is why he failed.

But now Star Wars will be in someone else's hands. Someone who watched it and loved it and understands why. Someone with fresh ideas based on an entirely different childhood of consuming pop culture entertainment. Maybe Brad Bird will make a Star War. Maybe Joss Whedon or Darren Aronofsky will make a Star War. Hell, in 20 years, maybe you will get to make a Star Wars.

Fascism and the idiocy of people like Stalin and Ayn Rand don't reflect badly on the classical tradition.

And neither do your silly dogmas have anything to do with the classical tradition. Pick up a copy of Aristotle's Poetics some time.

For me, the classical tradition isn't restricted to the Ancient Greeks. The classical tradition spans all parts of the world in almost all forms of art and architecture from Ancient Greece up to the mid 1800s, and going into a catacombs/underground state in the early 1900s.

I'm not someone who holds strongly to Greek philosophy or Greek/Roman law and ideas. I'm much more of a fan of the Roman Empire after Constantine, and especially of Middle Ages and Renaissance. I abhor and reject a lot of things from the enlightenment, industrial age and modernism. (and yes, I know a lot of those I hold as heroes based some of their ideals on Greek philosophy)

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Logged

My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible houseI looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

We are not to judge someone's state of salvation, we have every right and duty to judge the behavior and actions of a person as being good or evil.

Do you think Jesus thought that prostitution was okay and that the prostitute could just go back into prostitution as long as she believed in him? No. He welcomed her because she was made after his image and likeness, but at the same time he and his disciples would condemn the behavior of the unrighteous (such as the Pharisees).

Do you think that just because they are made in the image and likeness of God, that the work of porn stars is artistic and possibly has artistic merit? Or how about the "musical" work of gangster rap, who sing about rap, shooting people and is full of crude, sexual and violent language?

No, I'm actually of the opinion that pornography and any nudity in any films, ads or any media (including games) should be completely banned. No matter how "artistic" it is. This would also extend to literary works. From what I've heard about it, 50 Shades of Grey sounds disgusting and shouldn't have ever been permitted to be published.

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Thank you for posting the whole bit instead of soundbiteing it. Most people don't. Keep in mind, if your judgement it just then what have you to fear? Note that the next three lines show when a judgement is most just - when it is there to help out your fellow man. Though, Christ also warns that you must judge yourself first in order to cast the mote from your brother's eye.

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Thank you for posting the whole bit instead of soundbiteing it. Most people don't. Keep in mind, if your judgement it just then what have you to fear? Note that the next three lines show when a judgement is most just - when it is there to help out your fellow man. Though, Christ also warns that you must judge yourself first in order to cast the mote from your brother's eye.

As I said, judgement is meant by judging someone's salvation, which we can't do. But we have every right and duty as Christians to judge behavior and actions.

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Thank you for posting the whole bit instead of soundbiteing it. Most people don't. Keep in mind, if your judgement it just then what have you to fear? Note that the next three lines show when a judgement is most just - when it is there to help out your fellow man. Though, Christ also warns that you must judge yourself first in order to cast the mote from your brother's eye.

As I said, judgement is meant by judging someone's salvation, which we can't do. But we have every right and duty as Christians to judge behavior and actions.

Very right in that.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

We are not to judge someone's state of salvation, we have every right and duty to judge the behavior and actions of a person as being good or evil.

Oh? "He who busies himself with the sins of others, or judges his brother on suspicion, has not yet even begun to repent or to examine himself so as to discover his own sins..." - St. Maximos the Confessor

And really, why are you maligning a man long dead? And what basis do you have to support the idea that he was a great sinner?

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

We are not to judge someone's state of salvation, we have every right and duty to judge the behavior and actions of a person as being good or evil.

Oh? "He who busies himself with the sins of others, or judges his brother on suspicion, has not yet even begun to repent or to examine himself so as to discover his own sins..." - St. Maximos the Confessor

And really, why are you maligning a man long dead? And what basis do you have to support the idea that he was a great sinner?

I never said he was a greater sinner than me. I said he was immoral, avant-garde and was involved in a less-than-reputable group. I think we know (or can guess from his writings) that he was an active homosexual, he joked about sexual immorality (including prostitution) in his literature, he was certainly avant-garde and part of a less-than-reputable group. Back then, many playwrights, actors and plays were not considered a very reputable or acceptable thing. Think of the environment Shakespeare was involved in as more like how we think of gangster rap when compared with classical music. Even if the greatest lyricist ever were to write a gangster rap song, does that mean his work is automatically great and he should be upheld as a great artist? No...

Like I said, as Orthodox Christians, we are called not to judge a person's soul. However we are called to judge (Or rather use discernment) a person's actions, decisions and morals.

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

We are not to judge someone's state of salvation, we have every right and duty to judge the behavior and actions of a person as being good or evil.

Oh? "He who busies himself with the sins of others, or judges his brother on suspicion, has not yet even begun to repent or to examine himself so as to discover his own sins..." - St. Maximos the Confessor

And really, why are you maligning a man long dead? And what basis do you have to support the idea that he was a great sinner?

I never said he was a greater sinner than me. I said he was immoral, avant-garde and was involved in a less-than-reputable group. I think we know (or can guess from his writings) that he was an active homosexual, he joked about sexual immorality (including prostitution) in his literature, he was certainly avant-garde and part of a less-than-reputable group. Back then, many playwrights, actors and plays were not considered a very reputable or acceptable thing. Think of the environment Shakespeare was involved in as more like how we think of gangster rap when compared with classical music. Even if the greatest lyricist ever were to write a gangster rap song, does that mean his work is automatically great and he should be upheld as a great artist? No...

Like I said, as Orthodox Christians, we are called not to judge a person's soul. However we are called to judge (Or rather use discernment) a person's actions, decisions and morals.

A few things.... Far from "avant-garde", Shakespeare was as much a populist as Lucas in his prequel years.

Also, what do you have against Dante's Inferno? The people that man dissed deserved it- and he did it with mad skillz, yo.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

We are not to judge someone's state of salvation, we have every right and duty to judge the behavior and actions of a person as being good or evil.

Oh? "He who busies himself with the sins of others, or judges his brother on suspicion, has not yet even begun to repent or to examine himself so as to discover his own sins..." - St. Maximos the Confessor

And really, why are you maligning a man long dead? And what basis do you have to support the idea that he was a great sinner?

I never said he was a greater sinner than me. I said he was immoral, avant-garde and was involved in a less-than-reputable group. I think we know (or can guess from his writings) that he was an active homosexual, he joked about sexual immorality (including prostitution) in his literature, he was certainly avant-garde and part of a less-than-reputable group. Back then, many playwrights, actors and plays were not considered a very reputable or acceptable thing. Think of the environment Shakespeare was involved in as more like how we think of gangster rap when compared with classical music. Even if the greatest lyricist ever were to write a gangster rap song, does that mean his work is automatically great and he should be upheld as a great artist? No...

Like I said, as Orthodox Christians, we are called not to judge a person's soul. However we are called to judge (Or rather use discernment) a person's actions, decisions and morals.

A few things.... Far from "avant-garde", Shakespeare was as much a populist as Lucas in his prequel years.

Also, what do you have against Dante's Inferno? The people that man dissed deserved it- and he did it with mad skillz, yo.

I guess what I was taught about Shakespeare wasn't quite accurate. I thought he was just an unappreciated, unrecognized member of the lower class whose talents were wasted on the lower-brow culture of the theatre (which was not like, nor thought of like it is today).

I was taught by our educational system that his life and the culture he was involved in was much more akin to that of those of the fictional actors/actresses of "Jesus of Montreal" than they were of, say mainstream, classy "high-culture" actors and actresses of today. btw, "Jesus of Montreal" is another movie I detested, and I had to watch that movie in a class that was supposed to be about the real Jesus. Ugh...

As for Dante's Inferno. Brutus definitely didn't deserve to get "dissed", he was in the lowest part of hell being consumed by the beast alongside Judas. Brutus was totally justified in killing Julius Caesar. Other than that, I don't have much of a problem with it, other than how it is terribly theologically wrong and helped lead to the incorrect view of hell that many Westerns began to have.

Also, I purchased Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" and "The Grand Inquisitor" a while back, and have Dante's Inferno sitting on my shelf. I know that for the first two it may not end like I would want, but I feel I'm obliged to read them.

I think my main deal, is that we shouldn't come out of a movie, book or game feeling depressed. We have enough of that in real life, and we shouldn't have to experience it in fiction either. I understand non-fiction works or fictional works designed to get you to sympathize for a group or a cause and recognize the suffering that has happened, but you should come out feeling compassionate, but hopeful rather than depressed and sad.

As for Shakespeare and his works. He was an immoral, avant-gard playwright who lavished in the less-than-reputable society of his day. He may have been brilliant in his compositions, poetry and use of language, but that doesn't mean his plays were proper. Do you realize how crude (and ripe with sexual innuendos and puns) a lot of his work is?

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that you may not be judged,

2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

We are not to judge someone's state of salvation, we have every right and duty to judge the behavior and actions of a person as being good or evil.

Oh? "He who busies himself with the sins of others, or judges his brother on suspicion, has not yet even begun to repent or to examine himself so as to discover his own sins..." - St. Maximos the Confessor

Some critical thinking is required when taking snippets from Scripture as well as the writings of Saints. If St. Maximos the Confessor had spent all his time worrying about his own sins and repenting he never would have had time to have given us insights in how to better live our lives. Perhaps he cleaned the plank out of his eye first and then went on to guide us. And thank God he did for it is a great mercy of God to have the lives and judgements of the Saints to guide us.

Quote

And really, why are you maligning a man long dead? And what basis do you have to support the idea that he was a great sinner?

I will play the Devin's advocate in these theological matters, though not in his taste in literature.

I will also admit that some of my feelings about Shakespeare and his literature didn't come from college, but from my high school education years ago, and our educational system in high school isn't always the best. I'm more open regarding Shakespeare, but I always was so angry about Romeo & Juliet. Suicide has always horrified me, and i cannot stand it in any media. When I saw "The Dead Poet's Society" and Dr. Wilson (from House)'s suicide, I about shut it off.

When I was much younger, I had to battle depression, and seeing suicide in movies disgusts me and hits too close to home. That is the same exact reason I hate depressing films. I had enough of that crap when I was younger, I don't want to feel depressed, especially if I'm trying to escape the stress of everyday life by reading a book, watching a film or playing a game.

aaannndd.... as for Star Wars, I'm just going to wait and see what Leland Chee has to say about the status of the Expanded Universe. He's the "keeper of the holocron" and is the person whose job at Lucasfilms is to compile the canon and continuity of the series.